discussed Cited "see" Andrews v. United States We explained that under the rule of M.A.P. v. Ryan, “[n]o division of the court may overrule another division; only the en banc court can accomplish this result.” Bennett, 876 A.2d at 636 n. 13; accord, Austin v. United States, 847 A.2d 391 392-93 (D.C.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 895 , 125 S.Ct. 185 , 160 L.Ed.2d 161 (2004).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bennett v. United States However, even on the merits, appellant can not prevail because his challenges are foreclosed by this court’s binding precedents. 13 See Sandidge v. United States, 520 A.2d 1057, 1058 (D.C.) (rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to the PUF and UPA statutes), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 868 , 108 S.Ct. 193 , 98 L.Ed.2d 145 (1987); see also Hager, 856 A.2d at 1151 (noting Second and Fifth Amendment challenges foreclosed by Sandidge and Austin v. United States, 847 A.2d 391, 393 (D.C.) (rejecting due process challenge), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 185 , 160 L.Ed.2d 161 (2004)).